So, what’s more fun than talking about Beatles?

This video was posted in the comments under my Friday Tidbits piece, and has taken on a life of its own. So I decided to bring it front and center. It is loaded, and I mean loaded, with oddball things, but what caught my eye most was the appearance of original Paul McCartney, but only in brief shots, a few seconds each. He is mocking the Beatlemania days, doing the headbanging and woooos, all the while playing left-handed bass. Take a look at the screencap below the fold. The guy I say is Beatlemania Paul is circled in orange.

I mentioned to Michael Ludwig in our exchange under that post that the following photo could not be what I initially thought it was, two Paul’s.

Boat photo

I suggested to Michael that these two were so professionally managed that the two of them being in one photo would never get by the censors. The guy squatting down in the middle is definitely Mike (cowlick apparent), but I am not certain of the one on the left. This was, however, what got me thinking of Paul McCartney as a set of twins.

Take a look again at the Coming Up screencap above. I am thinking that they did indeed put both Mike and Paul in the same scene and together. Since it was 1980, Paul is Dead was in full bloom, so I think in the Coming Up video they are just having some good, clean fun. It is well done with high production values, and the way Beatlemania Paul is mugging for the camera is delightful. (I think he is also in close-up cuts of the drummer)

Here are a couple of screen grabs:

Beatlemania Paul 4

Beatlemania Paul 12

Judge for your self, and by all means, have fun!

In the fall of 1969 radio disc jockey Russell Gibb, WKNR-FM in Detroit, received a phone call from “Tom,” who told him that Paul McCartney had died and had been replaced in 1966 by a lookalike. Thus began a cottage industry that continues to this day, now called “PID”, or Paul is Dead.

But no! It’s 1980 and he’s alive!!! He’s alive!!!

There is some discussion about who the lead singer is, some saying he too is Paul, but in my judgment, it is Mike. The wraparound eyebrows are probably the makeup department. The face is narrower, but the thing I notice most about Mike in all these countless hours of study I’ve done on the subject is that he is so comfortable in his skin. On stage, he flows like butter, a natural performer. That is what I am seeing in this video, smooth as silk Mike.

I am sure there is plenty of other stuff in this video I am missing. Tyrone mentioned a Buddy Holly homage, and I see that. He also thinks the lead singer is Paul, and that the drummer might be [a riff on] Ginger Baker. All I can say is that in the early days, it was very difficult to tell Paul and Mike apart, and he could be right about that, I could be wrong.

No face chopping today. That’s work, and would spoil the fun.

20 thoughts on “So, what’s more fun than talking about Beatles?

  1. Not the actual Ginger Baker but a put on of the guy. Except, it later occurred to me that he’s riffing on Ringo who was making the film Caveman at the time and that seems a better fit.

    Like

      1. That last one down, look at the hair, the part on the right. That’s the “cowlick”I keep referring to. I think these are all Mike. He was, after a point in time, de facto “Paul” except for studio work where only the right people would see them together.

        Like

    1. Ginger’s style of pounding on the drumms is unique, and this guy in the video is not him. Also, G’s drum configuration and angle, cymbal placement, how he’s holding the sticks and attacks the drums are completely different from what is shown by the drummer in the video.

      I may be wrong, but as I paused the video to analyze the drummer, I noticed he looks a lot like Mike with a fake beard stickered across his hairless face. Am I imagining the resemblance?

      Like

      1. Yeah … Ty originally thought they were imitating Ginger, but thought better of it. The drummer is, as I see it, the original Paul, who receded to the background as Mike took the spotlight.

        Like

      2. I never meant to claim it was GB. I thought he may be the inspiration for the look. Then I thought he’s havin’ a go at Ringo because of Caveman, but J Barlow’s from the horses mouth, re: Bonzo, would seem to be the answer.

        Like

  2. I must have watched that video almost a dozen times during the past few days. In fact, I downloaded it to play it more conveniently and pause it more accurately. It is such a brilliant and funny work, and nice music, too. I thought, okay, he’s also the drummer and bass player, cool! But what appears to be the matter of the fact, is way cooler than what I thought … 🙂

    I had never before last autumn had an interest in the Beatles, let alone Paul McCartney. But this is such a fascinating story, full of puzzles and revelations.

    “Paul” is a very versatile character.

    Like

      1. Love the Beatles music yet I feel an overall a crappy thing to do to the real fans. That includes all the other artists that have faked it in someway. Of course standing in their shoes why would these young musicians turn down the fame and money. And how could these musicians not come fwd centuries later with the truth. The contract obligations must be brutal and fateful. The music and scene helped many of us get thru emotionally tough times, we felt connected to the bands and songs. All in good fun for them, however it shows us so called fans how much we really meant to them…
        We are just wallets, album and t shirt sales.

        Like

        1. The Beatles project was much larger than the players.None of the on-screen people involved were anymore than puppets, but as it turned out, the Hamburg project brought out some very real talent. So they let it run, to this day we have Macca. Lennon was part of a killing hope scheme, make him a working class hero, and then (fake) killing him. Being that famous, and then having to retire into nothingness is a form of death too. Harrison may have been the most talented of the group, but we had to watch him go through the frustrations of artistic growth, his bad stuff being put on albums with the good stuff being churned behind the people who were the Lennon McCartney front. John and Paul were frauds. I could be wrong, of course, but it seems to me that with his later hits and then his forming of the Traveling Wilburys, that Mr. Harrison was the real gold in this venture, that is, the guy that made his own music. Mike, Paul, and John were not without talent, but in large part were frauds. Ringo was just a drummer.

          Like

  3. I’m just confused as to why James ( Paul ) and Peter ( Michael ) need to be twins. The fact their mother dressed them in similar clothes is irrelevant. In those days just after the war lots of mothers made their own children’s clothes and it would be cheaper to buy just one sort of material for the job. Again regarding the fact of their similar sizes . There was only 18 months difference . My sister and I have eighteen months between us and our sizes / height were almost identical from early years.
    There ARE two entries in the National Archives : James Paul in 1942 and Peter Michael in 1944. I understand the reason James would be called Paul since his father was also called James and this could have created confusion. Why Peter would have been called Michael is beyond me.
    Even with the eighteen months difference they could easily have stood in for each other when required. They really don’t have to be twins to pull this off. To me the more important question is, who is Mike McGear ? The THIRD man in the story. I don’t think he’s related to the family at all but was introduced to take eyes off Peter . He certainly doesn’t look like Paul and not even like the young Peter. That’s why I believe the photographs in which McGear is present are photoshopped. He probably wasn’t even there.
    Going back to the National Archives: There was a James P McCartney born in 1941 who died in 1962 at just aged 21. No relation but led to a lot of rumour.
    Again with the archives: There’s a strange touch where McCartney’s and Linda’s marriage is entered twice. There’s a difference between the entries where in the one Linda’s name is given as SEE and the other where it’s given as EASTMAN. Both correct but strange for them both to be entered . Haven’t seen that one before.
    I DO trust the National Archives as I have sight of the originals which are in strict orders so any tampering would be noticeable.
    I’m sick of talking about Covid. Beatles talk suits me better

    Like

  4. Twins 3

    They don ‘t need to be twins, but happen to be. The photo on the left shows similar development in head size and shape. If you see 18 months difference there, I can only say “confirmation bias.” On the right they look to be maybe 3-4 years of age, so that if there were 18 months difference, one would have to be in diapers still. And it was traditional in those days to dress twins alike, but not just siblings.

    The Beatles were an Intelligence operation, a psyop. Intelligence, and movie makers, love twins. Some think that there were two sets of Beatles, all four being sets of twins. I could never go there. John’s family photos are suspicious, his background a fictional back story. Photos of him with what appear to be his real parents show two boys of simiular age. But there wasn’t enough – every photo of adult John was the same man, as far as I could tell.

    Since the Beatles were an Intelligence psyop, trained and backed by powerful forces, I would not trust Archival data about them.

    It was understood that there was going to be two Paul’s, meaning that one of the twins had to disappear. The means by which this was done was to hire a lifetime actor, Mike McGear, to play Mike McCartney, while the real Mike slipped in and out of the Paul shoes. Mike’s birth date was changed to 1/7/44, or double 8’s, a spook marker.

    Like

    1. Wow, a lot of bad work going on there. I wonder if it is the guy who contacted me via Facebook who lives in Australia and was trying to become a trusted person with Unwin. He thought Unwin was Lennon II, the twin, as I recall. I never thought much of it.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s